But this is the heart of your argument, you're willing to take the high a few hours before the trade but dismiss the bottom of the 38k as a starting point of reference when 38k is right in the beginning first 10 days of the ETF's actively accumulating the 100k coins?
I of course have to take what the price was right before the ETFs started trading. I understand that there was some seed money that apparently already bought some bitcoin, but on the very first day, if somehow 10B flowed in, you can damn well bet that they would have had to start buying bitcoins throughout the day in order to make sure they had enough to cover the inflows. If there were no GBTC outflows, then this would surely have caused price to rise vs. drop.
The way I see it, most people were aware that GBTC would be selling, but nobody knew how much the other ETFs would be buying. Perhaps what happened was that other people started to sell as well, just to not be exposed and see where the dust settles. So even though on the very first day, the outflows from GBTC were actually smaller than all the inflows, price still dropped. So this leads me to believe that lots of other people were selling.
There is no point in using the 38k low as a reference point. By now, GBTC was still had outflows, and the other ETFs still had inflows that exceeded the outflows. But it was here that perhaps other people figured a 20% drop is about as low as it goes, so they can get back in. In fact, I saw some posts where they suggested there was a gap fill at the CME, and this is what caused the price to start rising since the gap was filled. (trading ES, gap fills are a real thing and quite predictive)
Now I'm not sure how much a gap on a futures exchange will affect price, but I guess its possible that price can be pushed around for a while by wallstreet. I assume the price of futures is set by the spot price, and the spot price comes from several exchanges, so in order to affect the futures price, actual bitcoins have to be sold at those exchanges, but I'm really not too sure.
My interest actually lies in what happens when we have that true supply shock. What happens if at one exchange, people stop selling and its only bids that are in the market? Then maybe whatever mechanism that is used to keep prices similar breaks. Maybe companies like River or Swan, who sell bitcoin, all of a sudden find out that whoever supplies their bitcoin doesn't have it, and refuses to deliver it at the quoted price because they know the number is somehow wrong.
it has exceeded my expectations and I'm very happy
Not me. How can over 100k extra coins be bought, above what was sold, and price only move from 48k to 51k? I am sticking to my metrics and will try and illustrate it like this.
On Jan 10, price was 48k and GBTC had 619k bitcoins, while the other ETFs had 0
On Feb 22, price is 51k and GBTC+ETFs = about 730k bitcoins.
On this website,
https://heyapollo.com/bitcoin-etf it specifically states there is 113k net inflows into the ETFs, and yet, price is only 3k higher from where we started.
So on the surface, it seems that buying 113k bitcoins moved price only 3k. Clearly you can't extrapolate this because the next 100k bitcoins might not be so liquid at this price, and who even know if the ETFs can scoop up 1m bitcoins if the buying continues for the next 10 months. But I still expected price to move much more. I guess I'm happy because I added to my position at such a low price, but I still wonder how this is possible. There are clearly many factors at play here, and we have no idea where supply will come from and at what price, and where the supply crunch will hit. We can probably expect quite a bit of selling at the 69k ATH, and also $100k, but who really knows. Maybe this first 113k bitcoins was easy for the ETFs to buy, and the next 100k coins will cause price to spike up much higher and faster.
not on that post. I'm just repeating scam-wicks as an industry accepted description, lol
LOL